Another thread has a more in-depth discussion which seems to question the idea that the Holy Synod killed its WR.

Thanks, I hadn't noticed that until after I created this thread. I hope that's the case and that this is more of a house cleaning, so to speak.

It has been a long overdo house cleaning. Bishop Jerome really needed to be put in his place.

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

What did Bishop Jerome do that angered the Synod? I heard that he might have ordained hastily, but what exactly was his fault?

He violated church canons by ordaining several men during a single liturgy. That, to my knowledge, was the largest issue. The over-eagerness to ordain so many priests without existing parishes seems to be another.

What did Bishop Jerome do that angered the Synod? I heard that he might have ordained hastily, but what exactly was his fault?

He violated church canons by ordaining several men during a single liturgy. That, to my knowledge, was the largest issue. The over-eagerness to ordain so many priests without existing parishes seems to be another.

In the Orthodox Church only one person at a time is ordained to a priestly rank. Bishop Jerome knew this and disregarded it. What else did he disregard and why?

He violated church canons by ordaining several men during a single liturgy. That, to my knowledge, was the largest issue.

AFAIK, the only tradition that has such a canon is the Byzantine tradition, and it's a later canon. Every other tradition routinely and for centuries has ordained multiple men to the same rank in the same Liturgy. Should Bp Jerome be held responsible for violating a canon that ostensibly doesn't apply to the WR?

And if so, why not the Antiochians? Not that it is ROCOR's responsibility to be an enforcer for anyone but themselves, but the Antiochians have performed such ordinations (Byzantine tradition) with no incident.

Logged

Quote from: Fr Alexander Schmemann

The Gospel is quite clear: both saints and sinners love God. "Religious" people do not love him, and whenever they can, they crucify him.

What did Bishop Jerome do that angered the Synod? I heard that he might have ordained hastily, but what exactly was his fault?

He violated church canons by ordaining several men during a single liturgy. That, to my knowledge, was the largest issue. The over-eagerness to ordain so many priests without existing parishes seems to be another.

Can you please cite the canon(s) he violated by ordaining multiple people to the same order in the same liturgy?

He violated church canons by ordaining several men during a single liturgy. That, to my knowledge, was the largest issue.

AFAIK, the only tradition that has such a canon is the Byzantine tradition, and it's a later canon. Every other tradition routinely and for centuries has ordained multiple men to the same rank in the same Liturgy. Should Bp Jerome be held responsible for violating a canon that ostensibly doesn't apply to the WR?

And if so, why not the Antiochians? Not that it is ROCOR's responsibility to be an enforcer for anyone but themselves, but the Antiochians have performed such ordinations (Byzantine tradition) with no incident.

There is no canon forbidding it. However, most local ordinances do prescribe one of each rank per day per bishop. ROCOR's local ordinances forbid it, and Bishop Jerome transgressed this without discussing it with the Synod. Not good.

Another thread has a more in-depth discussion which seems to question the idea that the Holy Synod killed its WR.

Thanks, I hadn't noticed that until after I created this thread. I hope that's the case and that this is more of a house cleaning, so to speak.

It has been a long overdo house cleaning. Bishop Jerome really needed to be put in his place.

And this is how to put a Vicar Bishop in his place? I would imagine that a simple phone call from his Metropolitan would have been enough to clarify what his instructions/limits are. Why is there a need to call an emergency council and forcibly retire him?

Another thread has a more in-depth discussion which seems to question the idea that the Holy Synod killed its WR.

Thanks, I hadn't noticed that until after I created this thread. I hope that's the case and that this is more of a house cleaning, so to speak.

It has been a long overdo house cleaning. Bishop Jerome really needed to be put in his place.

And this is how to put a Vicar Bishop in his place? I would imagine that a simple phone call from his Metropolitan would have been enough to clarify what his instructions/limits are. Why is there a need to call an emergency council and forcibly retire him?

Perhaps this wasn't his only transgression, and he hadn't paid any mind to previous admonishments.

Another thread has a more in-depth discussion which seems to question the idea that the Holy Synod killed its WR.

Thanks, I hadn't noticed that until after I created this thread. I hope that's the case and that this is more of a house cleaning, so to speak.

It has been a long overdo house cleaning. Bishop Jerome really needed to be put in his place.

And this is how to put a Vicar Bishop in his place? I would imagine that a simple phone call from his Metropolitan would have been enough to clarify what his instructions/limits are. Why is there a need to call an emergency council and forcibly retire him?

Perhaps this wasn't his only transgression, and he hadn't paid any mind to previous admonishments.

Possible but I am not sure what transgression occurred. I am not a member of ROCOR and am not trying to pass judgement on them. i like most people are just trying to understand what is going on and what the decree actually means. I have watched as members of clergy have been going at it online arguing as to what this all means. It is not good... I will believe those clergy in RWRV that state there is nothing changing other than Bishop Jerome and Monk Anthony are no longer assistants to the Metropolitan and that they will be doing a better job vetting those allowed to join as clergy.

Another thread has a more in-depth discussion which seems to question the idea that the Holy Synod killed its WR.

Thanks, I hadn't noticed that until after I created this thread. I hope that's the case and that this is more of a house cleaning, so to speak.

It has been a long overdo house cleaning. Bishop Jerome really needed to be put in his place.

And this is how to put a Vicar Bishop in his place? I would imagine that a simple phone call from his Metropolitan would have been enough to clarify what his instructions/limits are. Why is there a need to call an emergency council and forcibly retire him?

From what I understand the main problem was Bishop Jerome writing public letters to others against Bishop Peter and making a public spectacle and even creating a bit of scandal. I think the ordinations per se were not what caused the forced retirement.

AFAIK, the only tradition that has such a canon is the Byzantine tradition, and it's a later canon. Every other tradition routinely and for centuries has ordained multiple men to the same rank in the same Liturgy. Should Bp Jerome be held responsible for violating a canon that ostensibly doesn't apply to the WR?

Having permission to celebrate the Divine Liturgy and other services according to a particular liturgical tradition does not mean you have permission to follow a different set of administrative rules than those prescribed by your Holy Synod.

Sure, I get that as a general principle. But it seems strange to me to prohibit something normal in the Western Rite based on a specifically Byzantine, non-canonical (as in there is no canon referring to it) custom.

Logged

Quote from: Fr Alexander Schmemann

The Gospel is quite clear: both saints and sinners love God. "Religious" people do not love him, and whenever they can, they crucify him.

There is no canon forbidding it. However, most local ordinances do prescribe one of each rank per day per bishop. ROCOR's local ordinances forbid it, and Bishop Jerome transgressed this without discussing it with the Synod. Not good.

Interesting, Father, thanks. I could never locate a canon to this effect myself, but people I've discussed this with all seemed to think there was one, so I just presumed I didn't look carefully.

Where/when did this custom originate?

Logged

Quote from: Fr Alexander Schmemann

The Gospel is quite clear: both saints and sinners love God. "Religious" people do not love him, and whenever they can, they crucify him.

Sure, I get that as a general principle. But it seems strange to me to prohibit something normal in the Western Rite based on a specifically Byzantine, non-canonical (as in there is no canon referring to it) custom.

Some of us, who as a condition of our "unfortunate" backgrounds, are unusually "sensitive" to such matters, and would thus identify this as as an example of "reverse uniatism." You know, if it looks and smells like a rose......